Thursday March 6, 1941 Asbill states that he knows of my legal mithe! of clefserer beating between treatment of the Elkins Cret pretem as between crude one! сет рас to that a product lines. Obvious A ^ may nevertheles can a For purposes of settlement world делот Compers ན ཀང C Tove not be considered rebate. Anything more than just comperation indebtedness?) mcrease 16 The above does not as imply. that the rates of return on crude and product lines must be the same. If ur fact differences, they should be recognized. are winning of the rebate Care world prevent cause divorcement and eliminate building of pipe The future 2 most economical means of transpalater The stay we definitely leave the Crying of pr duct to the ICC give up to rebare print must be unin The Thrif band upon the service must be scientipedy estöflinke Couture rates would have to in adjusted if carnings increased should be no aborente armata wan ceiling of a specified go Enture rate, would be decated by the comme The Cos. would file tariffs every year 62 3 years. Parttips Astier suggests in thing Hubbard & litigating Pipelines, rates лит Thes ptacle to the Committee Asbill suggests leaving present but limiting the Amount of dividends to be paid on paretests. MARCH 21, 1941. Re United States v. A. P. I. et al. Colonel HARRY T. KLEIN, Executive Vice President, The Texas Co., Rockefeller Center, New York, N. Y. DEAR COLONEL KLEIN: Mr. Hall is occupied with preparations for the hearing before the Cole committee of the House scheduled to commence on April 1 and has asked me to prepare and send to each member of the Industry Negotiating Committee a report upon our activities in Washington during the past 2 weeks. In accordance with the plan approved before the committee adjourned on March 7, Mr. Hall and I returned to Washington on Tuesday evening, March 11, and had sessions with the staff not only during the balance of that week, but on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of the week of March 17. You will recall that at the conclusion of the committee's sessions with the staff, Mr. Asbill suggested that the size of the combined groups made a redrafting job difficult and that more rapid progress could be made if 2 representatives of the industry met with 2 representatives of the staff for the purpose of clarifying and rewriting the agenda and for the additional purpose of solving or attempting to solve the problems with respect to which there was substantial disagreement. You will also recall that Mr. Asbill had assured Mr. Hall and me that the staff would only be represented by himself and 1 or 2 of his associates. When we met on the morning of March 12, the staff was represented by Messrs. Asbill, Snyder, and Berquist and for a short time rapid progress was made. Later in the day Dr. Stocking appeared in his capacity as a member of the Attorney General's consent decree committee. As he had neither participated in preliminary discussions between the staff and the industry committee and was not fully informed respecting either the objectives of the Government in the Mother Hubbard suit or the contents of the bill and had only the vaguest ideas about the contents and meaning of the antitrust laws; and, as he had the erroneous impression that the Government desired to write a code of fair practice for the industry, progress during the balance of the week was extremely slow. Dr. Stocking was not present at the conferences held during the week of March 17 and we found the other members of the staff cooperative, constructive, and reasonably sympathetic toward the industry points of view which we presented. Mr. Arnold unexpectedly joined the conference on March 17 for the purpose of warning the industry subcommittee that he had neither read nor approved the original or revised agenda and that a difference of opinion might arise in the future between the negotiating committee headed by Mr. Asbill and the general consent decree committee (of which Dr. Stocking is a member). During the course of his statements, he emphasized that the source of disagreement might be the form of the decree. It was quite apparent to Mr. Hall and me that this visit had been inspired by Dr. Stocking, who had previously stated to us that, so far as he personally was concerned, he favored a consent decree containing customary injunctions and restraints. Mr. Hall and I explained to Mr. Arnold that we had been working for some 6 weeks upon substance and not upon form and that there was a clear understanding between us and the staff that at the appropriate time we would make every effort to prepare a decree for his approval along the lines originally suggested by him to Mr. Andrews and me. We repeated what the entire committee had previously said to Mr. Asbill to the effect that in our judgment all questions relating to the form of the decree could properly be postponed until an agreement had been reached on substance. Mr. Arnold finally left, apparently satisfied that this method of proceeding with the conferences was entirely satisfactory. We are enclosing herewith a redraft of the agenda in which we have attempted to cover the entire scope of the Mother Hubbard suit, with the exception of the matter dealing with the activities of the American Petroleum Institute and the product pipelines. Each of these paragraphs has been tentatively approved by Messrs. Asbill, Snyder, and Berquist with the exception of articles V and VI relating to rates of return upon crude pipeline systems. In the enclosed report we have appended to each paragraph comments indicative of the position of the staff and the reasons for the changes which have been made. It is, perhaps, needless to say that the enclosed report contains extrene! Confidential information which, at the present stage of the proceeding, swal not be made available to anyone except the members of the negotiating com mittee. It is our understanding with the staff that the conferences with the entire industry committee will be reconvened on Tuesday, April 1, unless the bearings of the Cole committee make it impossible for Mr. Hail or any other member the committee to be present. Upon the assumption that there will be no confit. Mr. Hall and I have reserved accommodations for the entire industry committe at the Shoreham for Monday, March 31, with the hope and expectation that the committee can spend the entire day discussing the enclosed report. I am sending a copy of this letter and of the enclosure to each member of the committee. Very truly yours, CHARLES L THOMPSON. FERENCES WITH ANTI-TAUST STAFF DERING ME WAS The following document contains a revicion of the entire a renda and covers all problem. raised by the sc-called Mother Hubbard suit except paragraphs relating exclusively to the activities of the American Petroleum Institute and it product pine lines. The numbers on the lefthand margin of the pa on the first line of each paragraph relate to, paragraphs of the Bill of Complaint. The designations, "S-1", "S-2", "RF-2" or "RP-3" and "C-3" relate to the sections of the Sherman Act, Robinson-Patman Act or Clayton Act, which re-considered by the Staff to prohibit the practice therei-referred to. / oppie poro FOR THE CONTIDA TIAL INFORMATION GEFRS CF TAE 98505 0-58-pt. 1, vol. 2——37 |